Stretch 4 vs. Typical 4

Has there been any instances of teams being successful utliziing a stretch 4 vs. a typical 4?
Also, if a stretch 4 pulls the defending team's 4 away from the basket, has Demar benefitted with increased shots closer to the basket?

Personally, I would rather have guards and wings shooting 3s, and our 4 grabbing boards or taking shots within 10-15 feet.

Orlando would be the most glaring example of winning without a traditional PF when they had Lewis/Turk at the forward positions with Howard up front. The Nash-led Suns also had success at times with perimeter-oriented PFs. The Spurs have often played Duncan at C and won championships utilizing a guy like Horry at the 4. There are probably other examples but those jump out at me....

Sorry (edit): Nowitzki may also be listed here but I've never really considered him a simple "stretch 4" as he's one of the best players ever to play the game. He does more than hit jumpers.

Dirk Nowitski was obviously the guy that comes to mind.. but it's usually not so common to have a stretch 4. Guys like Bosh, Garnett and Gasol can stretch the floor as well, but they can also bang inside.

It's why I never liked Bargnani. His game doesn't mold well to a traditional power forward which is a guy who rebounds, hustles and plays D.

If you look at the best shooting guards in the game, you can see that most of them did not play with a stretch 4 but was still able to get plenty of points. Having a stretch 4 open things up for others in my opinion is a myth.

Orlando would be the most glaring example of winning without a traditional PF when they had Lewis/Turk at the forward positions with Howard up front. The Nash-led Suns also had success at times with perimeter-oriented PFs. The Spurs have often played Duncan at C and won championships utilizing a guy like Horry at the 4. There are probably other examples but those jump out at me....

Sorry (edit): Nowitzki may also be listed here but I've never really considered him a simple "stretch 4" as he's one of the best players ever to play the game. He does more than hit jumpers.

Those are great examples and in all those cases the stretch 4 prospered due to a much better player in the lineup getting them those shots, and in return they made it easier on the star player to get easy points & rebounds on the inside (Duncan & Dwight) or penetrate inside to open up more options (Nash or in Rasheed's case a guy like Chauncy Billups, which were really the only years where Sheed's 3-point shooting became a backbreaker rather than a shot he also had every once in a while).

Dirk is the anomaly where as the stretch 4 he's actually the best player on the court but even he loses a lot of his specialness when not put in the proper system. And as you mentioned he's one of the all-time greats, you can't bank on legendary skills all the time.

Those are great examples and in all those cases the stretch 4 prospered due to a much better player in the lineup getting them those shots, and in return they made it easier on the star player to get easy points & rebounds on the inside (Duncan & Dwight) or penetrate inside to open up more options (Nash or in Rasheed's case a guy like Chauncy Billups, which were really the only years where Sheed's 3-point shooting became a backbreaker rather than a shot he also had every once in a while).

Dirk is the anomaly where as the stretch 4 he's actually the best player on the court but even he loses a lot of his specialness when not put in the proper system. And as you mentioned he's one of the all-time greats, you can't bank on legendary skills all the time.

"Has there been any instances of teams being successful utliziing a stretch 4"

The last 6 NBA championships have been won by teams that have a 4 that very regularly shoot from beyond 16 ft. Is that successful enough?

I don't think any basketball person considers Bosh, Gasol or Garnett "stretch 4s". They are Power Forwards with diverse offensive games that happen to include the ability to knock down jumpers. You are also talking about twp of the greatest PFs of all time (Garnett and Gasol) and one of the most efficient offensive PFs in the history of the NBA (Bosh). These are not useful comparisons to Bargnani.

I don't think any basketball person considers Bosh, Gasol or Garnett "stretch 4s". They are Power Forwards with diverse offensive games that happen to include the ability to knock down jumpers. You are also talking about twp of the greatest PFs of all time (Garnett and Gasol) and one of the most efficient offensive PFs in the history of the NBA (Bosh). These are not useful comparisons to Bargnani.

The question for the thread was "Has there been any instances of teams being successful utliziing a stretch 4 vs. a typical 4?", not is AB as good as these other guys. Now whatever the poster thinks is a "typical 4", which is ever evolving in today's NBA, what would you call a "stretch 4"? These are open to interpretation, but to suggest "any basketball person" doesn't consider them stretch 4s, I give you the following facts, based on last year's stats:
................% FGAs are jump shots.... % of jump shots beyond 16 ft...... total FGAs beyond 16 ft
Bargs ....................78............................ ...39...........................................30
KG.........................79..................... ..........51...................................... .....40
Bosh......................60...................... .........59....................................... ....39
Pau.......................63...................... ..........39...................................... .....25
Dirk.......................87..................... ...........33..................................... ......29

Saying they "happen to be able to knock down jumpers" doesn't describe how they're being used. Again, this wasn't about asking for a comparison of bargs vs these guys, but if you don't think all of these guys aren't being used to "stretch" the floor, on a very regular basis, then you're ignoring facts. To get back to the question posed in the opening of this thread, every team that has won the last 6 championships, has PFs playing outside the paint a significant amount of time and taking from 25-40% of their shots from beyond 16 ft., with KG shooting more from out there than any of them.

So the answer to the original question is that all recent most successful teams are significantly utilizing a 4 as an outside shooter, stretching the floor rather than clogging the paint. Damn, it's the new NBA, not someone's perception, dating back to olden times, of what a "typical 4" is.

The question for the thread was "Has there been any instances of teams being successful utliziing a stretch 4 vs. a typical 4?", not is AB as good as these other guys. Now whatever the poster thinks is a "typical 4", which is ever evolving in today's NBA, what would you call a "stretch 4"? These are open to interpretation, but to suggest "any basketball person" doesn't consider them stretch 4s, I give you the following facts, based on last year's stats:
................% FGAs are jump shots.... % of jump shots beyond 16 ft...... total FGAs beyond 16 ft
Bargs ....................78............................ ...39...........................................30
KG.........................79..................... ..........51...................................... .....40
Bosh......................60...................... .........51....................................... ....31
Pau.......................63...................... ..........39...................................... .....25
Dirk.......................87..................... ...........33..................................... ......29

Saying they "happen to be able to knock down jumpers" doesn't describe how they're being used. Again, this wasn't about asking for a comparison of bargs vs these guys, but if you don't think all of these guys aren't being used to "stretch" the floor, on a very regular basis, then you're ignoring facts. To get back to the question posed in the opening of this thread, every team that has won the last 6 championships, has PFs playing outside the paint a significant amount of time and taking from 25-40% of their shots from beyond 16 ft., with KG shooting more from out there than any of them.

So the answer to the original question is that all recent most successful teams are significantly utilizing a 4 as an outside shooter, stretching the floor rather than clogging the paint. Damn, it's the new NBA, not someone's perception, dating back to olden times, of what a "typical 4" is.

Where did you get your numbers from? Bargnani took almost 290 shots from 16ft+, had he played a full season that would have been over 600? That would also amount to 64% of his shots from 16ft+ 3pters alone he took 115 in 31 games.

Anyways, almost every NBA championship teams had a "4 who could hit an outside shot" - Horry, Duncan, Worthy, Rasheed Wallace. etc etc. Again, if we are going define a "Stretch 4" = PF with an outside shot = 16 ft + , then most of this leagues 4s are stretch 4s.

But I also don't think you'll find many people who define "stretch" by anything less than a player who regularily shoots 3pters.

Where did you get your numbers from? Bargnani took almost 290 shots from 16ft+, had he played a full season that would have been over 600? That would also amount to 64% of his shots from 16ft+ 3pters alone he took 115 in 31 games.

Anyways, almost every NBA championship teams had a "4 who could hit an outside shot" - Horry, Duncan, Worthy, Rasheed Wallace. etc etc. Again, if we are going define a "Stretch 4" = PF with an outside shot = 16 ft + , then most of this leagues 4s are stretch 4s.

But I also don't think you'll find many people who define "stretch" by anything less than a player who regularily shoots 3pters.

I screwed up on the last 2 of ABs numbers, and they should read very close to KGs numbers.

Aside from that, the main point is about "stretch" vs "typical". Now I don't know what anyone's concept of "typical" is in today's NBA, because there's no such thing, but the term "stretch" seems to be referring to a PF that "stretches" the defense (thus the use of the bloody term), not exclusive to 3 pt shooters. Taking 25-40% of one's FGAs from beyond 16 ft, as a PF, means they're spending a significant amount of time out there, and stretching the D to contribute to their success. There's good reason the Raps offense works better when AB is on the floor, even when his shots aren't dropping. Now, I'm not at all commending him for his play thus far, but responding to the "stretch 4" providing success question. In today's NBA, if you don't have a PF stretching the D regularly, whether that be out to 16 ft or 20 ft, you'd better have a bunch of Ray Allen's on you're team, because you aren't getting much in the paint.

If the question is whether a team can be successful with a player like AB at the 4 .. the answer is absolutely yes. The question isnt around the type of player imo - is about the execution and performance of that player.
Can your 4 be relatively weak defensively and shoot a lot of jumpshots? Yes .. see Dirk, Bosh, Gasol even Ryan Anderson. However, that player has to bring WAY more in other areas than AB is currently bringiong (FG%, rebounds, passing, defense, etc)
I think we need to distinguish between a player that is either just bad (or is playing bad currently .. I guess thats a matter of interpretation) .. and a position thats fundamentally flawed. If AB was making more shots and picking up a few more rebounds, we would all be happy and this team would be doing a lot better. The reality is the STYLE of his game isnt THAT different from many successful PFs of later. The EXECUTION however is severly behind ..

Like many of the others have already said, in today's NBA, every team has a '4' that can shoot from 16 ft and beyond. Heck, Amir can hit that too. The game has evolved away from "power" forwards scoring on the low blocks, the same way it has moved away from traditional centers. The current NBA center, league avg, is more like the historical powerforward of yester-years. So if you are looking for a historical perspective of whether a team can win with a stretch player at the typical low-post position, then perhaps your question is more about centers in today's NBA.

For those that are trying to argue that you have to shoot 3's to be a stretch "4", then I think you are missing the point. The point of a stretch 4 is to stretch the defence away from the hoop, so really anything above the free throw line works.

Look at all of the Championship teams since the Jordan-Bulls (they end the last era imo); almost all of them have had a player who played significant minutes at the "4" spot, while shooting (and hitting) from 18 feet.

But to make the stretch 4 affective, you need to have a guard capable of penetrating the defence, drawing in the defenders that leave the stretch 4 open. Look again at the list, but throw the names Kobe, Tony Parker, D-Wade, and Rondo on there and you can see why the stretch forward was affective. The outliers were Detroit and Dallas. Detroit won by playing superior defence and having a number of capable shooters. Dallas won by riding Dirk's 14 foot elbow post game, which was unguardable.

So can a team win with Bargnani, which is the real question to be honest? Yes and no. Can a team win with Bargnani playing a tiertiary role and shooting well? Absolutely. Can a team win with Barg's playing like he is now? Not a chance if he's a starter. In comparing Bargnani to the list above, he is closer to Robert Horry than any of the others in terms of "start" level on a championship team. Horry was a role player, a very good (in the playoffs at least) and smart role player who came up big when he needed to. Barg's could do that. But the rest of those guys, Duncan, KG, Dirk, LeBron are all-time star players, so it likely didn't matter if they were a stretch 4 or not, they were epic.